Here we are going to focus on Donald Trump credibility. Why? Trump’s book is largely about Donald Trump, not America. Trump’s book actually has very little to say about America. The deeper we go into the book the more obvious that becomes.

Trump’s book is a sales job. Should we buy what Trump is selling? Here we will review Chapters 10 -14.

10: Lucky To Be An American

Trump knows he is lucky to be American. These days I am afraid that actually is a plus. Trump himself provides examples. He likes to fly massive American flags on his properties. Of course, that offends some people. So he has had to fight off the authorities twice.

Trump also talks about his support for the military. He wants our troops to have the best equipment. For example, he was shocked to find the parents of some GIs were buying their sons body armor. In addition, he promises to either fix the Veterans Administration or send the vets to private doctors and hospitals.

11: The Right To Bear Arms

Trump unambiguously supports the Second Amendment. That includes concealed carry (which Trump says he does) and allowing military personnel to carry firearms on bases and at recruiting centers. He also clearly states his support for law enforcement officers.

12: Our Infrastructure Is Crumbling

Here Trump describes the problem. We are not maintaining our infrastructure, and the longer we wait the more expensive it will be to fix the problem.

Trump sees a lack of will.

Our airports, bridges, water tunnels, power grids, rail systems–our nation’s entire infrastructure–is crumbling, and we aren’t doing anything about it. Former secretary of transportation Ray LaHood knows all about this and he got it right when he said, “If we are going to have safe transportation systems in America, you have to invest in them. We have not done that.”

He described our way of dealing with this problem as the “limp along, go along” system. “There’s no vision. No leadership in Washington to fix it, and they are trying to put Band-Aids and duct tape and other things on these fixes and they simply do not work.”

That’s actually a good statement of the problem. Unfortunately, Trump’s solution is nonsense. He says he can fix our infrastructure because he knows how to build things, and he would make fixing our infrastructure a major priority.

So what is the problem with Trump’s “plan”?

The Federal Government has no charter for fixing our nation’s infrastructure. The Constitution does mention postal roads, but that hardly justifies using Federal dollars to fund any infrastructure project anyone can imagine.

If we want our infrastructure dollars spent appropriately, then we cannot give our money to sneaky politicians and then just expect them to spent it wisely, but that is what we have been doing. Even if we put Trump in charge as the president, that fact remains true. Even if Trump has the best of intentions, Congress’ powers of taxation and spending will trump his good intentions.

13: Values

Here Trump tells us he cares about his children, that he is a family man. He tells us he is a Christian, and he will defend freedom of religion and the right to say Merry Christmas.

He ends by saying:

President Obama has been an awful president. Obama has weaken the military and emboldened our enemies. He has also taken executive actions he had no right to take.

He respects women, and he has given his female employees important jobs.

14: A New Game In Town

Here Trump offers himself as a game changer. Elect him, and he will get the best people to work for him and fix problems, that is, make America great again.

Trump does understand the fact nothing gets done in Washington means that people who actually want to do something don’t want to work for the Federal Government. He also understands that we must appoint judges who respect the Constitution. Nevertheless, he thinks that the election of one man, himself, will change the game. What he doesn’t seem to appreciate is that Obama could not have done all the damage he has done all by himself. Obama had to have the support of Congress and the Supreme Court, and Trump will not have that support.

General Observations

Recent news indicates Trump may not be as Conservative as he wishes to sound.

RNC Members Open To Trump Campaign’s Pitch Of A Kinder, Gentler Donald (dailycaller.com): Here Trump seems to be telegraphing a move to the center. If Trump wins the nomination, it is quite likely he will move to the center, and he will be able to do so easily. Trump doesn’t have an ideological position; he is running on his charisma and business success. So if Trump wants the big money donors to the Republican Party to back his play, he just has to make it clear he is willing to make a deal.

Donald Trump: Let transgender people use the bathroom they want (www.washingtontimes.com): Here Trump’s position is clearly not Conservative. It doesn’t even make sense. We separate the sexes for reasons of safety, not convenience. We have a long history of separating the sexes in the restroom because we know it is worth the expense. If guy can choose whatever restroom he wants just by saying he identifies as a woman, what is to stop him from going into the ladies room just to see what he can see? When the women of our families use the restroom, don’t we want them to be safe? Who wants their wife, their daughter, or their granddaughter to encounter grown men in the restroom, disturbed jokers who think it is “funny” to pretend they are women and use the lady’s room?

More and more I see Donald Trump as somebody who just wants to be somebody. So he builds big buildings. Now he wants to run the country. Long ago under the leadership of such a man people built a huge tower. That tower was impressive but useless.

Haven’t we had enough of politicians who want to take all our money and spend it for us? Check out Ted Cruz. Government has a role. We need it to protect our rights, but we need to vote to run our own lives. As much as possible, if we want to get what we want, then we need to spend our own money. Giving our money to politicians should always be the option we resort to when nothing else will work.

Post navigation

57 thoughts on “CAN WE TRUST DONALD TRUMP?”

Well said. I think trust is an interesting issue. Can we trust Trump? Well sure, we can trust Trump to be Trump. This trust thing has become a real problem in recent politics, people are all voting for a brand, a persona. Someone’s character is no longer important, their track record, how they might solve problems, whether or not they are trustworthy. Instead it has become all about the packaging.

Packaging? I am afraid so. For some reason we have substituted what looks good in our own eyes for God’s wisdom. Even though our Christian heritage has proven its worth, too many of us don’t bother to study it.

I guess the Book of Judges provides a clue. What perverted God’s chosen people does not seem to be much different from what is perverting our nation.

“Trump knows he is lucky to be American.” It can be a blessing or a curse. It is a blessing to receive such prosperity to do so much good with it. It is a curse to any who believe their luck has anything to do with them. In fact, it is quite the opposite.

“Trump unambiguously supports the Second Amendment.” And yet he opposes the very essence of it through irresponsible blustering about shooting people in Times Square.

“Trump sees a lack of will.” Not really. It is more a lack of resources. Consider the I-66 toll that is coming soon and the number of roads in various counties that are almost as bad as DC. It is less that no one wants to fix these roads. It is that an interstate like 66 will be used more often and and constitutes a major artery for NorVa. Who cares if South Glebe doesn’t get repaved or that 17 in Warrenton is still two lanes in two directions? There are frankly more important projects to be prioritized.

“Here Trump tells us he cares about…” the bottom line.

“Here Trump offers himself as a game changer.” Except not because we have a constitution for a reason. You work in that system and that is it. Anything else is to be rejected unless it is accepted through the constitutional recourse to amend the constitution.

Confusing comment. Generally, I agree. Particularly with your defense of the Constitution.

Is our problem with the maintenance of infrastructure due to a lack of resources? Not really. Infrastructure we cannot afford to maintain we should not build.

We do not allocate sufficient resources for maintenance because we just give our money to politicians, and those politicians have different priorities for our money. If we want our money spent on the infrastructure maintenance, then when we use the infrastructure we want maintained, we have to pay to use it. In addition, we must insist that the money be used to maintain the infrastructure we are willing to pay to use.

But infastructure we cannot afford is often needed. Take the examples of Glebe, Rt. 17, and I-66. Those roads are necessary because the populations in Arlington, Stafford, and NorVa along 66 exploded in recent years making existing infrastructure insufficient to meet the new demands. Rt. 50 out by Reston is still two lanes even though they keep building more and more houses there.

” If we want our money spent on the infrastructure maintenance, then when we use the infrastructure we want maintained, we have to pay to use it.” Are you suggesting we toll all the roads?

I think you have the expansion of services confused with the maintenance of an existing system. Not the same.

If more people want to use an existing traffic corridor, then it should be possible to collect more money in tolls and pay for the expansion. The problem is devising an appropriate system to move more people though the same space. Adding more lanes to our roads isn’t a great idea. Google Personal Rapid Transit (PRT). Here is my take (=> https://citizentom.com/2008/07/14/the-transportation-problem/). Bit out of date, I suppose.

We have interstates, state roads, metropolitan expressways, local roads in small towns, and the neighborhood streets in developments. The Federal Government could easily put tolls on the Interstates. The state government could charge for the use of state roads and metropolitan expressways. Local government could decide how they want to pay for local roads. At some point, charging a toll is sort of dumb and intrusive. In addition, we really don’t want to give the government too much power to track our movements. Look at the way the Obama Administration has tried to collect our phone records. It is naive to think our leaders won’t abuse their access to any information they collect.

Gasoline taxes are collected for the express purpose of road maintenance and new construction, at the state and federal level. These automatically scale with usage.

But the funds are immediately diverted, so the purpose gets abandoned.

There is another sort of perverse effect: When the government finally gets around to fixing infrastructure, it often does more harm than good. Remember the I-35 Minnesota bridge collapse that was so much in the news several years ago and reawakened the whole “crumbling infrastructure” meme for progressives like mastersamwise to abuse? It collapsed because the government-organized process resulted in a giant amount of weight moved onto the bridge the night before, construction equipment and many tons of material. That evening, when partially blocked rush hour traffic added to the load, it fell, killing 13 people and injuring more than 130 more.

The cause analyses put forward by the governments all say that the government was not at fault, of course, it was a bad design. But halfway down this “root cause analysis” you encounter these lines:

Why was there concentrated weight over the gusset plate? Because there were construction equipment and materials on the bridge, concentrated over the gusset plate.

The increased weight on the bridge was a result of an increased dead load on the bridge and the high volume of traffic on the bridge. Why was there a high volume of traffic on the bridge? As we will show on the Cause Map, it was rush hour, half of the lanes were closed, and there was an increase in use of the bridge from the time it was built. Why were the lanes closed? A repaving job was underway.

They also mention that two previous repair attempts had added more than 4 million pounds to the weight of the bridge, or increasing its own weight by more than 20%.

But it was a bad design. Oh, sure. And they wanted to sue the original engineering firm from decades before. (I don’t know what became of this action.)

Such things need to be completely privatized, in a way that avoids the perverse incentives that keep mastersamwise’s progressive comrades in power.

I think you’re right that Trump just likes to make a name for himself by building big things and the presidency for him is the ultimate building to cap his life with. I don’t think he nor anyone on his team thought he would get this far.

In the back of my mind I keep thinking he will come out one day and say the joke’s on us for taking him seriously and point ofutthe real problem for America is people blinded by a culture of personality and that the Right suffers from it just as badly as the Left did with Obama.

Bill Clinton’s detractors use to call him slick Willie. It is the same sort of thing. If you can get up in front of an audience and never show any shame, then you can say the most outrageous things. We actually reward the shameless.

When I was a boy, one of my history teachers told me a story about a Spartan boy that illustrated the power of shame. I think I will do a post about it.

Just pondering infrastructure here, Tom. We have a bridge that connects us to the main land and one year a storm blew it away. So of course the county, state, feds have no money to rebuild it, so taxes must be raised, bonds sold, and after the bridge is finally rebuilt, a toll must be paid on it. This went on for a while until people discovered that our bridge had actually been paid off several times over. So began the lawsuits to end the tolls, to stop the taxes, to quit billing us for this bit if infrastructure that had already been paid for. The people finally won, but it was a long slog. Of course, we never got our money back, either. That’s the problem with government, they like to spend other people’s money. Trump needs to come visit, we could teach him a few things about “infrastructure.” 🙂

Ouch. You prefer Hitlery to be “crowned” as our next President? I don’t see Trump as another “Fuhrer”.
America has become an amoral police state. “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams
With all his fleas, as an outsider, who is beholden to none of the elites in positions of power, Trump has upset them by threatening their strangle hold on the status-quo. IMHO he is the medicine we need.

Your column was very articulate. Your trepidation as to Trump’s motives are noted. It remains to be seen whether his motives are steadfast and genuine, or if his behavior (God forbid) mimics Obama.
There is, however, a Constitutional issue to be paid heed. Before it became apparent that he was getting far ahead of Cruz in the primaries, I was dismayed that two of the other candidates, Cruz and Rubio, are both Constitutionally INeligible. You may balk at this but the original intent of the founding fathers is spelled out here: https://partneringwitheagles.wordpress.com/2015/01/27/intent-the-founding-fathers-and-natural-born-citizen/

You noted that the Framers found Vatell’s Law of Nations useful. But they immediately clarified it, making certain that under US law, a citizen born overseas to a US father in good standing was also a natural born citizen. This clarification was perhaps not all that necessary, as the law had been expanded to include the same statement about natural born citizens born abroad more than a century before the Constitution’s framing.

As an aside, Vattel’s writings are not “the supreme law of the land” — THAT term is well-defined in the Constitution, and refers to the Constitution itself, laws made pursuant to it, and ratified treaties.

But note the various quotes of Vattel that use “such as” in their phrasing. That phrase introduces an example, not the entire set. “Mammals generally have four legs, such as a horse or cat.” But does a bat have four legs? Does a whale? No; “such as” is a common example. Elsewhere in the law discusses natural born citizen children of citizens born abroad to citizen fathers.

Subsequent law soon expanded “father” to be “either parent.” And that law absolutely makes Ted Cruz eligible. The US Supreme Court has never issued a ruling on this, and there is a strong precedent to avoid wading into what they would call a political ruling.

There have been many candidates for president who were not born in the US, or who were not born to two US citizens, and thus are considered ineligible according to this new-found reinterpretation of NBC. Mitt Romney’s father, who ran for president, was born in Mexico — to a polygamous family of Mormons, to make it more interesting. Donald Trump would be ineligible under the same strict interpretation; he did not have two US citizen parents.

But all of that is moot, as the correct interpretation is to allow parents to pass on their US citizenship, and this was established a century before the US Constitution was written. That Constitution was and is an extraordinary document, but does have some ambiguities — for example, under a very strict construction of the sentence framing, no president has been Constitutional since John Tyler, as none were citizens of the US at the time of the ratification of the US Constitution.

So the founders original intent was perverted. It mattered not where someone was born, so long as the parents were citizens.
Since when can Congress “expand”, or otherwise change the Constitution without formal procedures, whatever they may be; for instance, those needed when they intend to make a Constitutional Amendment? Oh, that’s right, their regard for it is the same as their regard for a roll of toilet paper. Not Amused.

I think a better question than “Can We Trust Donald Trump?” would be … “Can we trust any of the candidates? —- Who can predict what any of them will do once they are securely into their office? — Words on the campaign trail often become muted shadows of themselves when the realities of the office start smacking the new president in the face and on the posterior with sometimes cataclysmic and soul-changing force. Can we trust any of them? Do any of them have a clue about being president until they are tried in the fire of the office? I trow not.

As it happens, your question has a good answer. Ted Cruz has demonstrated himself to be worthy of our trust. He made many statements and commitments to his constituents before being elected to the US Senate, and has done an admirable job (if you favor Constitutional government) of sticking to those promises. This is why he is so hated by the cronyists.

He has also argued Supreme Court cases over just exactly what powers and duties the president is entrusted with, and has expounded with detail and clarity the appropriate foreign and domestic policies a president should support.

Good answer! While we cannot predict what anyone will do as president, we can consider their record. Trump almost totally unpredictable. He doesn’t have a record of public service, and his emphasis on pragmatism instead of principle means we have to guess at what he considers pragmatic.

The appeal of Obama and Trump are similar, as is the two-layered aspect of their positions. It is easy to understand a vote for Obama in 2008 by people who did not have the time or interest to invest in political pursuits, which was much of the country. Both men were and are touted by media, got lots of free publicity, and promised to be completely different from the status quo and to be shaking up the goings-on in Washington.

The second layer of the two is different. Obama, upon investigation, was shown to have a surprising amount of communist leanings and connections, as well as leanings and connections to the Saudis who fund jihadist activities. For a subset of Obama voters, these things either did not matter or were actually a plus. But most were unaware of this history, as most of the mainstream media had no interest in publicizing it.

Trump is running as a Republican, but his past shows him to be a mix of liberal progressive Democrat and rather amoral opportunist. His “positions,” such as they are at the moment, were almost entirely reversed from prior (recent) positions. They seem formed on the spur of the moment, and a now-common phenomenon is Trump making some outlandish policy statement followed by members of his team sending out hasty notices “clarifying” (i.e., walking back) these statements.

There seems to be a crucial difference, though, in the two men and two elections. In 2008, many voters would have dropped their support for Obama had they known the truth. But supporters of Donald Trump seem absolutely incurious or even approving of his statements, even though they would often be campaign-ending gaffes if uttered by someone else. It seems that most of his supporters are unshakable, and he’s gaffe-proof.

This blind support for Trump is troubling to me. What sort of Republican voters have we developed that are working from raw (often ugly) emotion and in the complete absence of guiding principle? Ted Cruz was always going to have to overcome the Republican establishment and the entire Left including its media. But against Trump? There should have been no contest.

Cruz’s strengths include a fierce sense of honor and principle and a life of honesty. So these are the areas that Trump and the media have attacked him on: “Lyin’Ted” and marital infidelity. To be fair, it seems that Rubio started that, with his ridiculous assertions that Cruz supported legalization of illegal aliens. But this and Trump’s planted infidelity stories and campaign fraud allegations should never have stuck. With the left’s media support, they have.

The media, with GOP establishment help, have crafted a “nobody likes Ted” meme that is true only of people whose cronyism Cruz obstructs. But so many people are saying “he’s creepy, he’s dishonest, he’s manipulative” that it colors their own memories and makes this prophesy self-fulfilling. More’s the pity — because we are eliminating our best shot at repairing the damage done to the US.

If you are suggesting that the fundamental problem is that a large proportion of our population is no longer guided by a code of honor, I have to agree. Most Conservative Christians point to the need for revival. Of course, if we have a revival to save our country instead of people’s souls, it won’t accomplish anything. Nevertheless, the wreck our country is becoming indicates Christians are not doing enough to save souls.

If you are suggesting that the fundamental problem is that a large proportion of our population is no longer guided by a code of honor, I have to agree.

That was not what I was intending to suggest. Instead, I think that the large proportion is not engaged, and not paying much attention to how honor figures into the equation. The smaller set, the Trump supporters, have their own sense of honor, but these folks are contorting it to extremes to make Trump support work for them. Like progressives, and some of them are progressives, Trump supporters seem to feel that the end result justifies these contortions over the means (and the meanness) needed to achieve it.

Most Conservative Christians point to the need for revival. Of course, if we have a revival to save our country instead of people’s souls, it won’t accomplish anything.

You say this confidently, but I think that evidence suggests otherwise.

Consider: When the Constitution was being drafted, we had about a decade under our belts as an independent nation. These framers, many of whom were also founders, had thought much about what they wanted to make of it. Were they set on saving people’s souls, Christianity would not have been optional, as the great majority of them were Christians of one flavor or another. And yet this option (to be of any faith or none) was presumed, then explicitly coded in as the first part of the first Amendment. They had different goals, and accepted that people could look out for their own souls. To have decided otherwise would have been against liberty, and the Framers were far too familiar with conditions in which faith was a requirement rather than a choice. Yet you could not fairly say that these people didn’t accomplish anything.

The flip side of this is worth considering as well. Many Progressives are religious; and people of faith make up a majority even of that group. Progressives generally are working toward what they consider to be the salvation of mankind, though conservatives disagree with both the goal and the concepts. Religious progressives would likely include saving of souls in this, though progressivism tends to work at the wholesale rather than individual level. A good example of progressive soul-saving is Jim Wallis; he is a devout Christian, an open communist, and the long-time spiritual advisor to Barack Obama. He wants to save your soul and mine through control, forcing America to become something we would not recognize, nor like. If he is not doing enough, I’m happier.

Nevertheless, the wreck our country is becoming indicates Christians are not doing enough to save souls.

The Article V Convention process that we’ve discussed before can succeed wonderfully on a secular basis, and it has become nearly our last hope for a non-violent restoration of this country. Respect for freedom of religion is among many Constitutional aspects to be restored and reinforced, but again this is incompatible with saving souls. Forced religion is completely compatible with liberty, and on that principle we should be able to agree.

Thanks again for your most informative comments. They are sincerely appreciated. I am no expert on these matters and do not pretend to be but I have a personal feeling that some of Trump’s appeal stems from a rising tide of new nationalism that has come from a long period of disappointment by the grass roots at the obstructionist dysfunctionality of government and the perceived threat from the changing of the American paradigm from the comfortable old “White Guy” society to a more “Browning” of the nation — and I think this has been enhanced and aggravated by the onset of the fear of Islam brought on by ISIS and their ilk. Not sure of my ground here but just saying!

I would concur in part. Whites in the US can hardly be called paranoid when there are college course explicitly teaching that white people are evil, privileged, oppressive and what have you.

But prior to this turn of events becoming very public, I think that most Americans were not concerned about the “browning” of America so much as the emasculation of America. Flag pins being banned, patriotism considered evil, any displays of love of the country considered explicitly racist — these have become public attitudes from around the turn of the century. Each new generation rachets up the anti-American sentiment further.

A few miles from where I am sitting, a college declared that displaying the American flag was oppressive. Across the country, phrases like “America is the land of opportunity” is a racist micro-aggression and must not be said.

All of this impacts those who care about the country, and it provokes a deep uneasiness. And some of them have learned that we are advertising in Mexico and elsewhere to bring in illegals, and we have whole government websites promoting all the welfare handouts they can get if they make it in. Obama has set up a commission to make sure that immigrants are not pressured into assimilation, which the commission considers a very negative thing.

More Americans, brown or black or whatever, would be fine. More anti-Americans are a problem for conservatives,. regardless of race. And those conservatives are punished any time they voice such a notion, or anything positive about the country.

Trump’s theme could almost be “Make America safe to compliment again.”‘

I think somebody wants to make us into a caliphate or something but I am not certain. Maybe this statement reveals how ignorant I really am and if I am ignorant then many of my fellow Americans must share the same malady.

I am still trying to get over the fact that people voted for Obama twice. The excuse of ignorance only goes so far. After the first four years, how could anyone claim he did not know what Obama would do.

It all kind of demonstrates how fickle the affections of The American Voter can be, doesn’t it? I have a suspicion … but I cannot say for sure … that the basic drive of American Voters is never based on their perception of the national politic but is more based on their perception of “What can I end up getting if I vote for this person or that person?” — I think a lot of America’s votes are based on the promise of more “Protection,” more “Free Stuff,” more “What’s In It For Me-ism.” I could be dead wrong of course …. I often am.

Sadly, I think you have it largely correct here. But such fickleness is not new — and the Constitution was designed to take this tendency and use it to keep things together, or to blunt it by limiting sharply what the government can do for individual voters.

Since the late 1800s, this design has been compromised, and now the floodgates of “what you can get” are wide open and proudly touted. As the phrase as old as Cicero goes, once the public realizes that they can vote themselves bread and circuses, that society is close to the end.

We are close — but we are not ended yet. Hence the push for an Article V convention.

Is Trump a Trojan horse? I don’t think he thinks he is Hillary’s Trojan horse. He may be his own Trojan horse.

What will be interesting to see will be how the major media treats Trump if he be becomes the Republican nominee. Will they go after him tooth and nail, or we they continue punch at him with little vigor. I don’t doubt most of the news media will favor Hillary, but Fox may continue to give Trump its support. Fox may regard Trump as its candidate.

The major news media is still run by about six different corporations. While these corporations have similar interests, they still don’t have exactly the same interests. So I doubt their ability to coordinate as much as you suggest, particularly when Trump really isn’t an outsider. He is just part of a different faction within the Establishment.

Since so many elected Republicans are RINOs, calling Trump a Trojan Republican is not saying much. In fact, Trump does claim to be an outsider.

Anyway, whether your conspiracy theory is true or not even you don’t know. Even if Trump wins the nomination, we cannot read either his mind or the mind of those conspiring with him. About all we are likely to know for certain is whether he wins or loses.

He self-identifies as a Republican, so he gets to use the Republican toilet. Too bad for conservative, who feel that they are the receptacles of that facility, and that our founding documents are the paper being used.

I noted your comment “What he doesn’t seem to appreciate is that Obama could not have done all the damage he has done all by himself. Obama had to have the support of Congress…”
When he wasn’t going to get Congress to side with him, Obama would use his pen (Executive Orders) to circumvent Congress. I’m surprised his pen has any ink left!

You make excellent points here, as I noted in older posts on your page. I just wonder how much worse things will become if Hitlery is elected? I’m ready for a woman in the Whitehouse, but NOT THAT WOMAN!

We’re all far from perfect; Trump has his “fleas”. He already has so much money (and the responsibility not to abuse the power that comes with that kind of wealth) that I can’t see any advantage at all for him to run for our nation’s highest office. Unless – he genuinely means what he says.
Reagan put smart people around him to make up for areas he had little expertise in. I see Trump doing likewise. Trump’s position as an outsider is why he’s so despised by those in power, because they have no hold on him. If my memory serves correctly, in some speeches, as regards education, he wanted to allow the states, not government to manage their schools. That was a good thing, regarding states rights.
You are better versed in these matters than I; as I recall, it was the states to have the most “power” with a small, weak government. Not gargantuan government, ramming its will down our throats.
Obama made an obscenity out of the words “hope and change”, perhaps Trump, fleas and all, will at the very least start to reverse the damage done. Thanks again for your observations.

I don’t blame anyone for supporting Trump, and I will vote for him if he becomes the party’s nominee. As an alternative to Hillary Clinton, Trump is a good choice.

Nevertheless, I think Trump is a vulgar fellow, competent, but not respectable. Instead of debating the issues, he has personally attacked his opponents. Thanks to Trump, the RNC, and the news media, whatever opportunity we might have had for serious debate of the issues has faded. Now Trump won’t even debate, and I think the reason is that he knows Cruz would beat him handily. So I support Ted Cruz.

I can’t support Cruz.
I am at loggerheads Keith DeHavelle over Vattel’s Laws of Nations; the requirements of Natural Born Citizen. It doesn’t matter whare someone was born, even the present Fraud in chief; so long as the persons parents, in particular the father, were citizens.
I gave him my post:https://partneringwitheagles.wordpress.com/2015/01/27/intent-the-founding-fathers-and-natural-born-citizen/
but his response was not one I can sit with. (see my response to him on this page)
If Congress perverted the founders intent, somehow allowing Constitutional changes without public knowledge, this fraud foisted on us ought to be revoked. As it stands, IF Cruz were Constitutionally eligible, I could easily support him.

It WAS the Framers who clarified that definition. The very first Congress was composed substantially of those who framed and/or ratified the Constitution. And the idea that children born abroad to citizens were natural born citizens was accepted law for a century by the time of the Declaration of Independence.

Selective and partial quotation of Vattel’ work or Supreme Court cases that were not addressing the issue clouds the issue. Dig into the citations you’ve copied; they point the other way.

I am not disputing this:
“children born abroad to citizens were natural born citizens was accepted law for a century by the time of the Declaration of Independence.”

That’s quite clear. I was referring to
your saying “Subsequent law soon expanded “father” to be “either parent.”
Not as Vattel put it “Children born of citizens in a foreign country, at sea, or while overseas in the service of their country, are “citizens”. By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers; the place of birth produces no change in this particular.”
By the way – http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/03/donald-trump-is-natural-born-citizen.html

Trump was born on June 14, 1946, in New York to U.S. citizen parents. He is therefore a “natural born Citizen.” His father, Fred C. Trump, was born on October 11, 1905, in New York, New York. His mother, Mary Anne (Mac Leod) Trump, was born on May 10, 1912, in Stornoway, Scotland. Trumps father was a U.S. citizen when he married Trump’s mother, who at that time had not yet naturalized to be a U.S. citizen. Trump was born in the United States thereafter. Under merger of the husband’s citizenship into that of the wife which was the doctrine existing at the time the Constitution was adopted and under Elg, this makes Trump a “natural born Citizen.”

“Subsequent law soon expanded “father” to be “either parent.”
That is my dispute, it does not matter where someone was born, so long as the parents were citizens.
Vattel:
Children born of citizens in a foreign country, at sea, or while overseas in the service of their country, are “citizens”. By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers; the place of birth produces no change in this particular.

Trump was born on June 14, 1946, in New York to U.S. citizen parents. He is therefore a “natural born Citizen.” His father, Fred C. Trump, was born on October 11, 1905, in New York, New York. His mother, Mary Anne (Mac Leod) Trump, was born on May 10, 1912, in Stornoway, Scotland. Trumps father was a U.S. citizen when he married Trump’s mother, who at that time had not yet naturalized to be a U.S. citizen. Trump was born in the United States thereafter. Under merger of the husband’s citizenship into that of the wife which was the doctrine existing at the time the Constitution was adopted and under Elg, this makes Trump a “natural born Citizen.”

I sympathize with the Abby Martin’s sentiments but not the language she used.

The problem with Hillary Clinton is that she is not qualified. She is dishonest and apparently incompetent as well. Her record reeks. Nobody can point to anything she has done that justifies voting for her. However, anyone who wants to take the time can find a reason why we ought to give her a fair trial, one that would most likely result in a long prison sentence.

“I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts.” Ronald Reagan.